Posts by LorenzoSmithXVII

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

LorenzoSmithXVII

For some reason the Watchtower demands that readers see this story as if it was as true as a news report. Which makes more sense? A factual report where animals die to rise again and die two more times or the Jewish understanding that this is written using an ancient technique common to religious narratives that are not meant to be taken literally?

Just in passing, I'm not sure if I determined this by my own research or that it was covered in explanation in some WTS publication, but the reference to "animals" was very specific. There was a distinction between "domestic" animals and cattle. In other words, it was my impression that cattle were killed by one plague and then pets in the house were killed by another plague. So that the impression that "all" animals are being killed more than one time is a incompetent interpretation. That is, the Bible is specific about one group of animals being killed by one plague and another group of animals being killed by another. You know, God killed the cattle in one plague then killed the Egyptian pets in another plague -- they were not the specific same group of animals. But the casual reading presuming a nonspecific concept for a general reference to ALL animals is the basis for confusion.

Even so, to make this claim I think you needed to be aware at lest of the WTS' explanation of how one plague killed the animals and yet another plague claims to kill other animals.

But this is typical. When scholars superimpose their own incompetent misinterpretation of the Scriptures to what the Bible really teaches, they come up with a negative view of the bible based on their incompetence and not on the Bible itself and this is "typical." But the Bible is sometimes a very difficult book to understand or some people superimpose their own personal view of the Bible as the only option.

Case in point, your #1. The Law Code and Jewish ritual of temple sacrifices more than confirms the concept of the original sin. Direct statements in the OT scripture about the transference of the sin of the fathers to the son creates the foundation of the original sin. But since you apparently MISSED that, you presume the idea of the original sin is not part of Jewish culture.

Now this is a very intellectualized concept of what Jews believe, but frankly, it is not intellectualized enough. The Law Code teaches Jews about the "original sin" and how the ransom sacrifice works, a concept seemingly not comprehended by you.

So I hear you, based on your own distorted misinterpretation of Jewish doctrine. Your inadequate view of Scripture is what you are creating conclusions on and not the specific facts of Scripture.

Or like your concept of the "firmament." You provided your own interpretation of "dome" rather than circle and then superimposed that reference to contradict the interpretation in some Bibles that the earth was actually round. But my interpretation of the "firmament" is not to the sky but to the water canopy after the division of the waters below and the waters above. "That is, that the earth was completely covered with water at first and above it a thick fog. So a division was made between the sea and the fog. The fog became condensed into the water canopy around the earth creating a clear bubble around the earth which then was frozen solid. Thus the earth was encased in something similar to a clear glass bubble, only it was clear ice, that is, something solid. This, in turn, created the "hot house" effect on the earth at a time when there were no seasons and no rains. Now that is "scientific" and part of the context of what happened during the flood. That is, this solid ice water canopy was super-heated and melted back into thick rain clouds and resulted in a global flood, covering the highest mountains.

So truly, you speak intelligently and all of what you say sounds reasonable, but only to someone who doesn't actually know Scripture. Or I should say, some read passages and get one concept of those passages and don't realize someone else gets another concept of the same passage. Then they draw conclusions on their own interpretation of the passage, which may be faulty or precise and then wonder why others come to a different conclusion?

So I will politely acknowledge that perhaps if I had your interpretation of the Scriptures I'd reasonably come to the same conclusions as you did, but since I have my own interpretation, I have different conclusions.

But let me share this one thing with you. You seem to be someone who presumes that the Exodus didn't really happen. Do you realize the Bible confirms that Akhenaten was the pharaoh of the Exodus and that after the 10 plagues he converted to monotheism? Thus the ten plagues and the Exodus literally happened?

It is one thing to claim the Exodus never happened and claim there is no evidence of the Exodus and quite another to try to dismiss the Exodus from happening during a specific time and with a specific pharaoh. But then, of course, you will lack "evidence" of the Exodus occurring during any other time than it actually happened, that's a no-brainer. Point being, someone arguing the Exodus never happened in a nonspecific manner or a distorted manner, like dating the Exodus at the time of Rameses II rather than Amenhotep III can get by with that logical argument. But it is far more difficult to claim the Exodus didn't happen in the context of a pharaoh becoming a monotheist.

So I would propose to you to please comment on the Exodus as an actual event if it occurred at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III and the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten? I would add, though, that the pharaoh of the Exodus was never lost historically. George Syncellus, for instance, from the 8th Century AD clearly confirmed that the pharaoh of the Exodus was understood to be Amenhotep III. Thus this concept that we don' know who the pharaoh of the Exodus was is pure propaganda. And this does relate to "science" as well, since the dating of the fall of Jericho is linked to the Israelites. Determine the date Jericho fell last followed by a 400-year period of desolation and you can date the Exodus! Guess what? The LBA fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE per archaeologists, points to an Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE which points to Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, who were the traditionally established pharaohs of the Exodus anyway.

The fact that you don't even know that, apparently, or have found excuses to ignore it, is something to consider.

So would you please comment for me on whether (1) you believe the Exodus was a real event, but also please date the Exodus at the time of Amenhotep III. Thank you.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Village Idiotan hour agoLorenzoSmithXVII, where does Asherah fit into all of this?

Asherah is just another version of the Mother Goddess whom embodies the heavenly identity of Satan as the wife of Michael the archangel.

But Asherah is special because of "The Mysteries" related to Satanism. The goddess is represented in a lot of different ways, different concepts. Asherah often was represented as a vagina, basically. It's the same design for many Catholic churches. The long ailway leading to the altar. They would create the concept or recognize it in nature as a ravine, for instance. Sycamore trees would be used to create a narrow lane leading to the altar at the end so that the worshippers felt they were having sex with the goddess by entering her vagina. So that's why references to the goddess was a reference to trees being destroyed, or to "groves." Artificial groves were created to create the concept of the birth canal, which worshippers would enter symbolizing having sex with the goddess. There was a lot of sexuality linked to "The Mysteries." Sex with the goddess was linked to a heightened spiritual experience.

But also there was persistent context of a marriage between the goddess and Baal and I've heard even some references to a marriage between Yahweh and Asherah. So the distorted concepts of the goddess still showed her to be married.

The goddess, btw, was also represented by a TOWER, which is the symbolism of the WTS. The goddess was also associated like in Eden with the provider of knowledge, particularly occult, secret knowledge. All referencing Satan's role in Eden.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Viviane3 hours agoLorenzo, what specific evidence can you cite showing the Biblical claims regarding Solomon to be true?
You appear to be starting from a position of "true unless proven false", from an apologist position. You've gotten how evidence works exactly backwards. Unless you've provided me a reason to believe in a dirt man and rib lady getting dietary advice from a talking snake, you've got all your work ahead of you.
Also, props to whoever I stole that line from

Aha. Ummm... I can't confirm by archaeology the snake story other than to note it is unproven but also undismissible. But archaeological references from the time of the Exodus down through the end of the Persian Period is it's own separate field. That is, the archaeology available that we have compared to the Bible.

But yes, first of all, in the context of Bible history, we do first presume the story is true and it remains true until proven otherwise. That's the biblical historical position. It doesn't have to your position though. But it does make an academic difference. Take for instance the fall of Jericho. The evidence is treated differently if you presume the miracle is true vs. if you lack proof of the miracle or you are waiting to confirm the miracle first, which cannot be confirmed.

This is the fundamental mistake or difference archaeologists make in assessing evidence. For instance, an archaeologist will see walls toppled. The Bible says it was by the hand of God and a miracle. The archaeologist, lacking proof of any miracle, will presume it was an earthquake, then when presume after the walls were toppled by an earthquake, it inspired the religious fable of how God did it. But that's not their option. They have no proof the walls were not toppled by a miracle of God. But I acknowledge the different approaches.

So the way I basically handle evidence is to put it into one of three categories. 1) Something that confirms an event specifically. 2) Something not is "inconclusive" which neither disproves nor confirms, and 3) Something that would be seen as a contradiction to the historical reference.

Let's do Solomon, for instance.

Okay, the Bible says Solomon built at Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo, specifically. 1 Kings 9:15 "Now this is the account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer."

Archaeologist found very similar six-chambered gates at all three places and quickly link them to Solomon, such as here:

Solomonic Gates at Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor

So what am I suppose to do now? This is either confirmatory or inconclusive, but it doesn't contradict this passage.

Is there anything else that would suggest Solomon built these gates rather someone else? That question deals with chronology. We have two references linking Solomon to these gates. One is the fall of Jericho by the Israelites per the claim of Dame Kathleen Kenyon who dates that event to between 1350-1325 BCE. That means the Exodus occurred between 1390-1365 BCE, 40 years earlier. The Exodus occurs 480 years prior to the 4th of Solomon. So the early dating for Solomon's 4th year would fall in 910 BCE, giving us the early range date for Solomon between 914-874 BCE. Those buildings per archaeologists are dated to the "early 9th Century BC" (900-867 BCE). So again, there is no conflict. The buildings are dated to the correct time period based on the fall of Jericho, meaning based on the dating for the fall of Jericho, per the Bible, Solomon would have been ruling at the time these buildings were built.

So whether this is a "confirmation" or not, nothing here contradicts Solomon building these buildings, particularly in these locations. So the upside is the Bible historian is very glad that, indeed, there is some archaeological evidence supporting Solomon building at these particular sites. It's wonderful. The same king built at these three sites at the same time and at a time when the kingdom was at the level of full statehood. So, I'm ready to move on now.

In the meantime though, since this is also a JW discussion board, JWs date Solomon's rule from 1017- 977 BCE. Based on that dating, they date Solomon's 4th year to 1013 BCE, and the Exodus 480 years earlier to 1513 BCE (1013 + 480 = 1513 BCE). So from the standpoint of a Jehovah's Witness, the archaeological dating of those "Solomonic" structures was built by someone else. OR, they presume the archaeology is defective. At any rate, the archaeological dating does not support and even contradicts Solomon's connection to these structures during the period of 1017-977 BCE. Further the fall of LBA Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE also contradicts an Exodus dated as early as 1513 BCE.

In other words, as long as you date Solomon's rule to the early 9th Century which corresponds with the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE by Joshua, then the Bible is completely confirmed by archaeology. But if you don't date the fall of Jericho and Solomon to those dates, then you have contradiction.

But this is a full circle. Archaeology confirms Solomon must have built those buildings, but only if you date Solomon to the right period and the fall of Jericho to the right period. Why archaeologists are not following the archaeology at this point is another issue. But this is ALL we need from the archaeologists. We just needed to know when they dated the fall of Jericho so we could date the Exodus and when Solomon built those buildings. We need absolutely nothing else from archaeology. Timeline issues are a chronology issue, outside the area of expertise for archaeologists.

But having noted that archaeologists volunteer to be "historians" even though their base claim is that they are NOT historians, they come under criticism because of their choices while ignoring history. Case in point, the pharaoh of the Exodus. The pharaoh of the Exodus was never lost. The pharaoh of the Exodus per historians as late as the 8th Century AD was none other than "Amenophis," that is, Amenhotep III. That's an independent reference for who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. When that reference is compared to the dating of the Exodus based on the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE, the Exodus would have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III!!!

So again, the historical reference for who was ruling at the time of the Exodus does not contradict the archaeology, but instead, is confirmed by the archaeology! The fall of Jericho points to Amenhotep III as the pharaoh of the Exodus. Note how this checks out on Biblical detail. The pharaoh that died in the Red Sea was a pharaoh that began his rule after Moses left Egypt for 40 years. So the question is whether or not Amenhotep III ruled less than 40 years? Answer: Yes. So there is no contradiction here.

What about the impact of the "alleged" 10 plagues. What do we know about the next pharaoh? Well, the next pharaoh, who was Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) decided the gods of Egypt were "worthless" and he became a monotheist. Ooops! You mean a "monotheist" like the Israelites? Yep! So that alone confirms the Exodus happened at the beginning of his reign, in perfect harmony with the historical reference of the pharaoh of the Exodus.

But you see, good-for-little lying Biblical archaeologists want people to believe who the pharaoh of the Exodus was is up for grabs. But that is not really the case. The archaeology AND history tell us precisely who the pharaoh of the Exodus is. The pharaoh that died in the Red Sea was Amenhotep III and the pharaoh who followed him became a monotheist after the 10 plagues.

But that is not the story these archaeologists are telling. They don't want you to link the sudden monotheism of Akhenaten to the Exodus. Why? Who cares? For some reason!!!

So Israel Finkelstein is an amazing archaeologist. His second greatest talent is probably being a nude model for "PlayGirl" since you think he is so cute. But as a Biblical historian, he sucks!

The historical pharaoh of the Exodus was always Amenhotep III, and now that is confirmed by arachaeology and he can't figure that out? Please!

See where this is going? The historians claim the pharoah of the Exodus has always been Amenhotep III. Now archaeology from Jericho confirms that. Where else can be go from here. The next pharaoh decided to suddenly become a monotheist? And yet Israel Finkelstein can't figure out when the Exodus happened?

Plus he's going to come out with a book and claim David and Solomon were "myths"? Plus he is going to go a step further and talk about Christian doctrines and that Jesus must be a myth too if Solomon is a myth, all based on this incompetence?

So yes, he's a great archaeologist, and yes, I can see he is very handsome, but as a Bible historian he is as phony as three-dollar bill. That's my personal opinion. You want to criticize my position? You'll lose. But bring it on.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Viviane3 hours agoIsrael Finkelstein is hot. I would totally let him excavate my site.

ROFL! I can't believe you said that. But you know, I think he must be aware of it. He must get that a lot. He is rather pretty, isn't he? Now that you mentioned it.

But look up a photo of his co-author, Neil Asher Silberman. Tell me what you think. There is some video of both of them on YouTube also.

Thanks for giving me my laugh for the day!!!

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Crazyguy6 hours agoYour giving the writings in the bible way to much credibility. Your saying in that the Noah story written roughly 500 bc is more accurate then the two or three that came a thousand years or more before it which would put these stories closer to Noah. So Noah tells his story to his offspring they get it wrong for a thousand years or more then all of a sudden at about 500 bc a Jewish writer gets is right somehow. Yet these same Jewish writers state that god created the vegetation before the Sun and made several more discrepancies in the creation story. And lets not forget how imposable the Noah's story is with millions of different animals and insects etc on a 450-500 foot boat for a year where one would need to store up over 500 tons of food just for the elephants alone.
I need to go smoke a joint or something so I can get on your wave length or something before we can continue with this conversation.

Let me just say in passing, that your reading of the scriptures is not the same as mine, so I can't address your reaction to your reading, only your reaction to my reading. Case in point, the Bible clearly says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That means the Earth and Sun had already been created. The earth clearly was already in existence but was simply dark and formless.

So when God said, "let there be light" its in the context of light being brought to the surface of the earth. That is, my interpretation is that Jehovah chose the planet earth, then chose the Sun and then brought the Earth in proximity to this particular sun to create light on the surface. So your idea that vegetation was created before the Sun was is not my reading. I believe you're legitimately overwhelmed by what you see as extreme contradictions to reality, but others of us interpret the specifics differently and so don't have the issues you do. Not that you are not entitled to those issues. It's just that interpretation sometimes makes all the difference in the world.

But I acknowledge that the way you interpret the reading, I understand your objections, but the way I read and interpret it, I don't have those objections.

This boils down to your wondering how I come to a different response or conclusion than you do, and that lies in the fact that I don't interpret the reading the same as you. All I can offer is to share how I'm interpreting it, while acknowledging that's my personal choice, while respecting your interpretation.

So critically, the "six days of CREATION" are clearly a misconception. The Earth and the Sun and universe were not created in just six days, 7000 years each. A better term would be the "Six Days of CONVERSION," that is, converting a dark, formless and watery planet into the beautiful bioshpere we now experience. To do that, it needed heat and light. So God moved it closer to the Sun. Same with the rest of the solar system. I interpret the creation of the other planets are not being created during those six days of 42,000 years, but already have been in existence someplace in the universe and God bringing those planets together to ASSEMBLE the solar system. Even our Moon was already out there some place long before God put it into the Earth's orbit.

That's why the Bible itself has no problem with the Earth being as old as it needs to be. The planet itself is very old. It is only life on this planet that is relatively new.

So understanding the Bible or at least considering various interpretations of the Bible rather than just our own helps us understand why some of us still find it easy to accept the Bible as a book of truth. But others misread the Bible and invent things the Bible doesn't say and then find fault with their own errors.

So one reason why people don't see "eye to eye" is because we're not interpreting the Bible the same way. You're responding to your personal interpretation and I'm responding to mind. If they are different, then we will have different reactions.

The "Six Days of CREATION" should be renamed the "Six Days of CONVERSION," which is a more accurate reflection of what actually happened in those six days to an earth that was already billions of years old.

For sure, the Bible is not a book that can be casually read. You have to pay attention to specifics.

25

An interesting theory on Stephen Lett

by joe134cd in

interesting theory i thought on stephen lett.

if anything i would of thought tomo3 would of caused them more grief with his comments.. http://insidethewatchtower.com/governing-body/stephen-lett-dumped-from-governing-body/.

LorenzoSmithXVII

I went to YouTube and watched to see what people are talking about. I don't find him to be overly objectionable. He doesn't disturb me that much.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Getting back to Genesis 3:15, I have a problem with the assignment of "the woman" as Jehovah's wife. That's because, generally speaking, we can understand the concept of the angelic population in heaven being like Jehovah's wife. But what about Satan? For "the woman" to be Jehovah's wife, you have to define that wife as just the faithful angels. But that leaves out who represents Satan and the 1/3rd rebel angels? Do they make another wife of Jehovah? The unfaithful wife? Since you have to exclude Satan and 1/3 of the angels from Jehovah's "wife" that woman being Jehovah's wife doesn't work for me.

Instead, again, I see this as establishing the enmity and division between Christ and his seed and Satan and his seed, only in the context of Eden, Satan is called "the woman" since she functioned as the wife of Christ in heaven up until now, and will be replaced by the 144,000 as Christ's new, but replacement wife.

This special connection between Christ and his wife and Mount Zion is reflected by the emblems in the Most Holy between the two covering cherubs whose wings cover the top of the ark. Satan is identified as one of these "covering cherubs" who had to be cast out of Mount Zion. Ezekiel 28:14:

"

…13"You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14"You were the anointed CHERUB WHO COVERS, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15"You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you."

Satan is called the "cherub that covers." This is a reference to one of the two cherubs whose wing covers the top of the ark of the covenant, representing Mount Zion. We know these are not simply symbolic angels because on the curtains the images of the cherubs are alternating between a cherub with the face of a man, representing Jesus Christ and a palm tree figure, which is a feminine figure and thus the lesser angel.

Further, Christ is represented on the breastplate of the high priest by 12 stones. Satan by only nine stones; another indication that these are two specific angels in heaven with a special relationship in regards to God's holiness on Mount Zion, a position we note becomes that of Christ's bride.

So if the two cherubs in this special relationship is considered to be husband and wife, then we know Satan was the original wife of Jesus who sinned against him. In Eden, Satan became the "pattern" for Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. So when God pronounces: "I will put enmity between YOU and the WOMAN and between your seed and her seed" he is addressing Jesus Christ and noting that Satan will be cast out of Mount Zion and they would be allowed to oppose each other for a period of time, during which time Satan would bruise Christ in the heal by causing his death as a human, but Christ would crush the head of Satan, which is a fatal blow, when he casts Satan into the lake of fire after the 1000 year reign.

Now this is just background of why some have the interpretation that "the woman and her seed" represents Satan and his/her angelic followers. But having noted that, even Christian artwork frequently represents Satan as being a female, half woman and half snake. Thus the concept that Satan plays a feminine role persists in esoteric pagan and Christian tradition. Thus if we asked where did the concept that Satan was a snake and a woman come from, you can point to the Bible. Satan is depicted as both a woman and a snake in the Bible.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Crazyguy3 hours agoI would say in your last response to me that If Solomon did exist he was an Egyptian king and not a Jewish one. The Egyptians ruled the Levant during either timeline you chose and there is plenty of evidence that some of the cities mentioned in the bible and surmised to be in the Levant were and are actually in Egypt. So again if Solomon was and Egyptian King which is more plausible in my opinion then where does that leave the Jews? Still just a small back water loose coalition of peoples living in Judea an area unable to support the kind of population needed back then to do anything that the Jews claimed David and his Son Solomon did.

Very interesting. I haven't come across this concept before.

In archaeology, a focus is on the similar gates at Gezer, Hazor and Meggido, specifically mentioned as places where Solomon built. In fact, they call these gates the "Solomonic" gates. I suppose not everything in archaeology is not always in black and white. But I'd question your position because of Shishak. Shishak invaded the region, an account recorded in the Bible, and he mentioned many of the cities found in the Bible, including Megiddo. That destructive level is very distinct at several cities specifically mentioned by Shishak. So are you saying Shishak attacked someone other than the Israelites?

Ultimately, the Israelites are confirmed by the pagan records of Moab (Mesha stele) and Assyria (Shalmaneser III). Of course, the earliest reference to the Israelites as a people was by Mereneptah. So I just don't see where a valid claim comes from that the Israelites did not have a powerful kingdom by the early 9th Century BC, which is where Israel Finkelstein confirms the great building works attributed to Solomon were built. Of course, the dated destructive level by Shishak is also dated to the early 9th Century. So there is much harmony as far as the relative chronology for this event in relation to the Bible.

Thanks for sharing your reference. I didn't realize it was so difficult to acknowledge Solomon as a real king based on archaeology. Shishak attacked Israel near the very end of Solomon's rule.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Another issue is how some thing the Bible myths or stories are based on similar Sumerian myths and stories, because the Sumerians came before the Israelites. However, I would suggest that Noah is the common thread between these similar myths. All the peoples found out about Eden through Noah and so developed their own versions of the events in Eden or the angels coming down from heaven to marry the daughters of men. Thus you find elements of the Bible stories among the pagans.

Even concepts like the "woman and her seed" are seen in pagan goddesses who hold a branch or a seed, like the constellation of Virgo. So yes, the constellation of Virgo holding a branch is based on a paganistic concept of Satan as the woman and her rebellion by the fallen angels. Thus Virgo is a version of the "woman and her seed." But does that mean the story in the Bible was influenced by the pagan myth? Or was the pagan myth based on the story of Eden handed down by Noah?

Point being, when you find very similar characters or stories, you want to link them together. One presumption is one is a derivative of the other. That's possible. But another possibility is that the stories are two versions of a common original story. In this case, the historical details handed down by Noah.

What is ironic is that the pagan concept of Satan being a Mother Goddess is more consistent with the Bible's description of Satan as a "woman" in Genesis. That is, the "woman and her seed" who would be opposed to God was understood by the pagans to be a virgin mother goddess. Whereas in general, Christians don't think of Satan was being a "woman" though they see the Bible describes Satan as the most gloriously beautiful angel in heaven and the Bible says it was Satan's great beauty that corrupted him/her. Many Christians see Jesus getting married to the church, the 144,000 in the case of JWs, but it doesn't dawn on them that this "new Jerusalem" is replacing his former wife, a position held in heaven by none other than Satan. But pagan concepts of gods in heaven often include goddesses.

Once you understand the esoteric pagan and occult references to Satan, then you realize that the "woman and her seed" of Genesis 3:15 is a reference to Satan and the fallen angels and you understand the concept of a mother goddess like VIRGO, the virgin mother goddess. She holds a branch which represents her "seed" or her following. She is considered a "virgin" because her children were born in opposition to her husband. That is, it was not by the consent that she inherited these children. These are children stolen from her husband and thus they emphasize that she is a "virgin," meaning basically that her children are adopted.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Phizzy3 hours agoLorenzo lost credibility with me when he started an Ad Hominem attack on Finkelstein. Come up with some Archaeological evidence that shows Finkelstein to be wrong, then come back here.

Well, I'm not that anxious to get into a tit-for-tat with you, but whether or not I lost credibility has to do with whether or not I know more about Bible history and archaeology than you do. Your position is unfounded unless you are more specific. But perhaps I should begin by being a little bit more specific myself.

Israel Finkelstein as an archaeologist, is brilliant. He knows his stuff and is opinated. I totally respect his archaeological expertise. But as a Bible historian, he lacks quite a bit of expertise. But no matter since that is not his field.

His expertise is digging up Megiddo and informing the world that the Solomonic level buildings belong to the "early 9th century BC," which he does. That's it. Now he qualifies himself when adding something further, which is his opinion. That is, he first qualifies the timeline he uses by saying this is the timeline most historians believe is accurate and definitive. Then establishing that for this particular timeline, he notes how Solomon is dated to the mid 10th Century and thus mismatch when the buildings attributed to him are built. Now it this point, Finkelstein has basically two choices: 1) He can date Solomon to the early 9th Century, or 2) He can claim Solomon is a myth. He chooses the latter, which is his preference, but that is a historical statement, not an archaeological one.

Now this is why I think Finkelstein is a phony. The timeline he uses to date Solomon dates the Exodus to 1446 BCE. But he doesn't make archaeological comparisons of 1446 BCE for the Exodus and then draws a conclusion based on that. Instead, he decides to date the Exodus during the time of Rameses II and then find fault with that dating based on the fall of Jericho, noting that Jericho was not inhabited during the time of Rameses II. But it was inhabited in 1446 BCE. Point being, Israel Finkelstein uses one timeline to date the Exodus and another one to date Solomon. So he is not consistent at all.

Now Finkelstein will be the first to criticize what "Biblical archaeology" is, that is, archaeologists with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other.

What this basically forces researchers to do is just to ignore the anti-Christian and anti-Biblical rhetoric, and just use his raw archaeological findings. The result is that Finkelstein is a brilliant archaeologist but a biased and incompetent Biblical historian, perhaps even dishonest.

Now that's my personal opinion about him and I'm more than happy to be specific in that regard. The issue is that apparently Israel Finkelstein is a Jew trying to discredit Jesus by using archaeology. But is he doing it in a non-biased way? That's my issue.